JPGreco

I may be reading to much into this question, but wouldn't the rate of growth change? And I'm not talking about how fast an individual blade of grass's growth rate changes, but rather the percent of growth of the field. You have the entire field that the cow and goat are starting to eat. We know it will take 45 days. So if the growth rate is X%, well X% of the % of grass left at the end of the first day is very different than the X% of the % of the grass left at the end day 44. Yes, the grass grows at a constant rate, but the amount of increase of total grass changes day to day. Sisyphus states that the cow can eat half the grass + half of the total growth in 45 days. Well, in the next 45 days the cow has to eat the other half of the grass + the initial growth + the new growth over the next 45 days. That means the cow cannot eat the rest of the grass in the next 45 days.

well, putting aside the theory that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, then yes, it would be possible. You have a planet and everything seen from the planet orbits it in a single day. The further away something is from the planet, the faster it must be moving in order to orbit the planet in a day (relatively speaking). So if an object had a large enough orbit, then yes, its speed would be greater than the speed of light. However, this doesn't work backwards. If you have a set universe, an object in the middle that is rotating will repeat what is seen once a day. Even if a star is far enough away that its orbit would be greater than the speed of light, it doesn't appear to be any farther away than, say, the moon is from earth, since it is seen every day. Its true distance doesn't account for its relative orbit. Now, regardless of how far something is from earth, its "speed" is the same as something that is half the distance, twice the distance, or any other distance from the earth.

Well, it depends. Momentum is Mass * Velocity. A object with larger mass has the potential to have achieve greater momentum since it doesn't have to be traveling as fast as an object with less mass. However, an object with less mass has the potential to aquire more momentum depending on its velocity. You're question about an energy source providing the velocity is also a little skewed. Since an energy source needs to do more work to impart its energy into the object, two identical energy sources acting on two objects of different mass will impart different amounts of energy into those objects. The object with the smaller mass will gain more energy, since less is used to overcome its inertia, and will achieve a higher velocity than the object with the larger mass. So according to your question, a larger object is actually less accepting to energy to used as momentum since more energy is used to overcome inertia and other friction forces. I guess the potential for maximum momentum is in favor of an object with more mass because as velocity would approach the speed of light, the momentum of the object would be greater of an object with less mass approaching the speed of light. So yes, larger objects have more potential in the grand scheme of things, but really, the potential of an object is based on parameters outside of its mass, namely the force being applied.

What we learn in elementary school is so wrong anyway, consider that the lion is the king of the jungle when it lives on the savannah. Anyways, the french aren't responsible for time, at least for months. Months was originally based on the moon, which is another measurement based on a physical property. The phases of the moon dictated time to many early cultures. Since the time between phases vary, so do months. Then there are approximately 12 cycles of the moon in a year. This created 4 years of differeing amounts of days, so months were on a 4 year cycle. This was corrected with the solar year. Time in the larger sense was never derived from scientific measurements, but rather from simple observation, which by definition, is based on physical properties. Why 24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds and then standard decimal divisions, I have no idea.

You'd be better off building what would essentially be a water mill only upside down. This way, as air is released under water and begins to ascend, it will be gathered in one of the arms of the air wheel. As enough air enters the arm, it will start to spin the wheel. The cycle will repeat like a water wheel does. I don't know if this would net or lose energy, I would assume it would lose energy unless you found an underwater natural source of either heat or gas that would spin the wheel.

Well, define most common objects. Objects made of multiple materials would require multiple wave lengths of sound to resonate each material, but the multiple wave lengths would interfere with each other causing none of the material to vibrate or to barely vibrate. The wine glass is one of the simplest examples because the material is very fragile and pure. Resonance is like pushing a kid on a swing. You need to push at the right time to build energy so the kid swings farther and farther. If you push at the wrong time or with the wrong amount of energy, it doesn't work right and the swing (vibration) starts to lose energy. If you push right (correct frequency) you can get a swing really moving. Aspects of resonance are all around us, but not at a destructive level.

I don't think this situation has anything to do with an internal rythym. Over time, you've learned how long a second is. How to count it accurately by applying a rythym to your counting. Its the same way a carpenter can look at something and estimate its lenght very closely without actually measuring it or how by picking things up, a person can accurately weigh it. Its a learned application of measurements. The more a person applies it, the better they are at it. Someone who has never learned what a second is can't naturally apply an internal rythym to counting seconds, unless they are lucky and their heart beats at one second intervals. However, I don't know who divised the "second", so if it is based on something internal, then we do have an innate rythym that naturally counts it off. But as stated, even after intense exercise, a person can still count of time accurately, so then its something derived from an internal rythym, that is learned and can then be applied without that rythym being present.

Its kind of hard to teach physics over the net. What you need to do is find formulas and explanations of what they are used for. Formulas for a lot of introductory physics. Now you have to find something that explains when to use them. http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/ap/students/physics/info_equation_tables_2002.pdf After you know how use them or at least are looking for questions, go to: http://www.nysedregents.org/testing/scire/regentphys.html This is the past few years of the NYS Regents Exams. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI may actually be taking a lot of physics soon, I'm thinking about going back to school to be a physics teacher